The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Is there a compelling reason to move to MF?

Egor

Member
Is there a compelling reason to continue this thread? ;) I guess there is by the amount of interest.

just checked back in and was amazed that this thread still going on.
Kudos to Abstraction for definitely touching on a nerve/subject that everyone here has put a lot of thought into.

omg.."lens test charts" "mtf" "wtf?" "100% crops of thistles" "cats and dogs living together..."

Sorry friends, just slap happy its been a long week shooting lots of stuff and staring at screens. This would be a great business if it weren't for the damn clients and the pesky employees...I'm telling' ya!

What cameras did I use...IDK...forgot, I think mostly MF with a sprinkling of 5DSr for certain automation tasks. I have shoot next week where the client wants the images to look "olde timey"...I think I will use my MF thru a Quaker Oats pinhole camera I made as a kid.

Will check back in a few to see if you get this all sorted ;)
 

Abstraction

Well-known member

stephengilbert

Active member
"However, that's a subject for another thread... "

Great idea. Why not start it over at the Leica forum. Tell them that Leica's days are numbered what with the iPhone and all. They love stuff like that.
 

Egor

Member
I wouldn't be surprised if 30 years from now there won't be any dedicated cameras of any kind. However, that's a subject for another thread...
Here is a subject for another thread:

Imagine if a Steve Jobs had been CEO of Nikon or Canon way back when....
We wouldn't bat an eye at the following statement:

"Hey, honey, I need to call the office, where is my camera? Do you have it in your purse again?"

I love hypotheticals, its hard to imagine a world without them :LOL:
 

0beone

Active member
Well this seems to have stirred up a hornets nest! for me the answer is quite simple.
As I walk down my passageway and view some of my prints what I see is the following:
Those taken with FF 35mm just don't have the presence (for want of a better word) no matter
what I do to them. On the other hand, those taken with MFD just 'POP'.
For me that is compelling enough!

Passage_1.jpg
 
This thread has actually made me realise why I loved shooting with my Hasselblad H4D so much and miss it, going to start planning on putting a MFD kit together again :eek:
 

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
This thread has actually made me realise why I loved shooting with my Hasselblad H4D so much and miss it, going to start planning on putting a MFD kit together again :eek:
As per Obeone, just look at your prints and images and it seems just so obvious to me. Maybe not everyone but those of us that actually shoot MF digital it seems like a discussion about the obvious but only when you see it vs analyze it. :thumbs:

YOU know why you want that H4D back but I suspect that it's hard to articulate to those that haven't shot MF digital.

Yes, yes, I have drunk the cool-aid and it started in 2000 with my Kodak 16mp DCS-645M which by todays standards is a brick of a poor quality MFDB but those images still resonate with me so much more than any of my normal 35mm DSLR images. Hard, maybe impossible to explain. But it is what it is to me.
 

torger

Active member
Well, there are those that shoot MFD without seeing any specific magic pop too, I'm one. I just need high quality raws then I can make it look the way I desire. MFD gives me that, but so does the high res 135 systems, to me the image quality difference is not critical at all. I like movements and a traditional shooting experience, that (legacy) MFD is much better at though, and as I have a system that works, why change?

Recommending MFD as first digital camera is like recommending a Porsche for the first car, so I just don't do it. Those really interested will get it anyway.

If legacy MFD does it for you it's actually not *that* expensive. It's cheaper than ever to reach the quality at least I need for my work. My conclusion is that the difference from very good to best available image quality doesn't make my photography any better art.
 

ErikKaffehr

Well-known member
Anders,

Thanks for those comments.

What I have seen after shooting 135/MFD in parallel for almost three years is that I took something like 4500 images with MFD and none have made it to the my wall…

I often carried both MFD and 135, as 135 has a wider range of lenses. But for longer walks the MFD stays in the car, same with a workshop I was on, I was not shooting the MFD at all.

Now, what I have seen that the MFD (Hasselblad V/P45+ in my case) gave a healthy advantage in resolution, but the 24 MP of the 135 I used was good enough for my standard print size. Printing both at A2, I could not see any advantage to either. With a loupe, yes. I am near sighted and that may help a bit, still I have not observed any difference.

So why did those MFD image not make it to the wall? I don't know. One thing I noticed is that with zooms on the 135 I had better control of crop. With the Hasselblad I often shoot two or three images and stitch to get a better FoV. That helps image quality but, as I have written before, the 24 MP of the 135 system is good enough for A2 which is my standard print size.

I have an image from the Hasselblad that made it to the wall, 60x80 cm, hangs in my father's room in their flat. In mother's room there is one 70x100 cm image shot with the 135. Getting to that spot takes something like an hour of walking, Hasselblad and a lot of 135 stuff was left behind.

Now, that I can have same resolution on a smaller camera I don't really see the need to carry MFD with me.

So what I see after almost three years and something like 4500 images is that equipment matters little and subject choice matters a lot. I have shot quite a few images I really like with the P45+, like these:



But I still feel my best images tend to be taken with 24x36 mm. I don't think that would change with a higher end back. Would I print larger, there would be more advantage.

Michael Reichmann has a famous posting, always worth a check: https://luminous-landscape.com/kidding/

Best regards
Erik

Well, there are those that shoot MFD without seeing any specific magic pop too, I'm one. I just need high quality raws then I can make it look the way I desire. MFD gives me that, but so does the high res 135 systems, to me the image quality difference is not critical at all. I like movements and a traditional shooting experience, that (legacy) MFD is much better at though, and as I have a system that works, why change?

Recommending MFD as first digital camera is like recommending a Porsche for the first car, so I just don't do it. Those really interested will get it anyway.

If legacy MFD does it for you it's actually not *that* expensive. It's cheaper than ever to reach the quality at least I need for my work. My conclusion is that the difference from very good to best available image quality doesn't make my photography any better art.
 
Last edited:

fotografz

Well-known member
I thought that this copy from Pentax about the development of their new FF 135 camera was a refreshing take on the discussion, especially regarding evaluation of IQ from product engineers:

“There are many ways to assess image quality. PENTAX has traditionally stayed away from the kind of image quality defined solely by excellent numerical assessment. It is probably because we regard sensory evaluation much more highly than most people would imagine.”

In the age of advanced technologies, PENTAX still places great importance on human sensibilities, something that is in complete opposition to much of today’s technological advancement. For PENTAX, this is the primary source for attaining exceptional image quality.

It probably comes closest to defining how some of us may perceive our own sensory evaluation between formats.

Very interesting 135 choice BTW:

http://www.pentax.com/en/k-1/challengers/challengers02.html

- Marc
 

Pelorus

Member
[snip] My conclusion is that the difference from very good to best available image quality doesn't make my photography any better art.
I had this discussion with my wife the other day Anders. In my words, I said that it wasn't my [legacy MFD] back, camera, lens, that was the limitation...it was the mug behind it.
 

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
I still feel my best images tend to be taken with 24x36 mm. I don't think that would change with a higher end back. Would I print larger, there would be more advantage.

Michael Reichmann has a famous posting, always worth a check: https://luminous-landscape.com/kidding/

Best regards
Erik
IF you only print 11x17 then I would agree that overall you won't see the real benefit of MF digital. With my HP Z3200 I have to downrez my MF files to 300dpi and reduce the overall size to match the native size of my printer paper. However, what I get as results do pop in a way that smaller sensor files ultimately don't.

If all you want is convenience then obviously a 35mm system is going to give you that if you travel with both MF and 35mm. Personally I find that the rigour of shooting just MF OR 35mm works better.
 
It's either you see a compelling difference or you don't. I don't see a MAJOR difference. All things being equal, I'd say yes, but there's the 400lb gorilla in the room - cost.

Your arguments absolutely make sense and I agree with you, but it's that pesky cash that just ruins everything. I couldn't possibly justify the price difference to myself. There are too many other things that I could do with that money that would make my life better than MF, even a Pentax 645z, which is pretty affordable by MF standards is unjustifiable in terms of price vs gain. What I see are the marginal differences that just aren't worth it to me.
I frequently feel this way about my peers in the wedding industry that choose to buy 2 Canikon Pro bodies. The D750 or D810 is more than suited to the task and you could have like 8 bodies for the same price as 2 pro bodies. For the 645Z, I got a used one, so I paid less than they do and I still have a D750 as a 2nd body/back up/do-er of other things. It was worth it to ME, but I know that argument does not apply to everyone, and I won't waste anybody's time arguing that my perspective invalidates anybody else's. When i see the images from the Z I am delighted! Can't really put a price on that. :)
 

ErikKaffehr

Well-known member
Hi Graham,

I don't print 11x17. Actually 16x23" (known in Europe as A2) is my standard print size. AFAIK it is the largest of the cut sheet formats and the largest you can print on a desktop printer.

Your printer is a size up, as far as I understand, and that size I think I would see a difference between my P45+ and the old Sony (24MP). But, the A7rII is a good match for the P45+ at actual pixels, so I would think it also matches at larger sizes as I have always felt that actual pixels is more critical than prints. Yes, there is pretty good science to explain that.

The comparison I was referring to was between a Canon G10 and a P45+ back on a Hasselblad H-series camera with the 55-110 mm zoom. Michael Reichmann had a group of "experts" guessing which was which and had a 50/50 ratio (indicating no systematic difference). One of those experts was Quentin Bargate.

Here are a few of his later postings and I would suggest that they are relevant in this context:

How much quality do you really need?

How much quality do you really need?

How much quality do you really need?

Now, I think that many of us are a bit overly optimistic that there is a small camera that can do a lot of interesting things.

Shooting 24x36 mm is not really about convenience for me. Once I put the A7rII on the HCam it is more like a technical camera, with +/- 15mm of shift and 10 degrees of tilt. Also, when I use Canon lenses I don't have aperture control (*), but that HCam is a 370 gram (0.82 lb) device converting any of my Hasselblad, Pentax or Canon lenses in a T&S device. So I give up convenience for T&S.

A small reflection. Of the 4500 images I made, something like one got to the wall. That is someting like 0.2 promille or 200 PPM. Something like 20% may make it to slide shows. My next priority is probably not a new camera but a 4K projector that allows me to project those images at 8MP resolution.

Best regards
Erik

(*) The solution is, put the lens on the Metabones, select aperture, make an exposure with lenscap on, remove lens during exposure, put it on the HCam, focus manually and shoot. I wouldn't say it is that convenient. But it solves a problem.

IF you only print 11x17 then I would agree that overall you won't see the real benefit of MF digital. With my HP Z3200 I have to downrez my MF files to 300dpi and reduce the overall size to match the native size of my printer paper. However, what I get as results do pop in a way that smaller sensor files ultimately don't.

If all you want is convenience then obviously a 35mm system is going to give you that if you travel with both MF and 35mm. Personally I find that the rigour of shooting just MF OR 35mm works better.
 

ErikKaffehr

Well-known member
Hi,

I would say that the Pentax 645Z makes some sense. It is using similar technology to the Nikon D810, present generation Sony CMOS. It also has a present generation AF system, image stabilised lenses and so on.

I wouldn't compare a crop frame 645 system to a Nikon D750, but a D810 is an adequate comparison IMHO. You also need to take lenses into account. Cameras don't make images, lenses and sensors do. But, I used to say that the most important things are in front of, below and behind the camera. The thing below is a tripod.

Best regards
Erik


I frequently feel this way about my peers in the wedding industry that choose to buy 2 Canikon Pro bodies. The D750 or D810 is more than suited to the task and you could have like 8 bodies for the same price as 2 pro bodies. For the 645Z, I got a used one, so I paid less than they do and I still have a D750 as a 2nd body/back up/do-er of other things. It was worth it to ME, but I know that argument does not apply to everyone, and I won't waste anybody's time arguing that my perspective invalidates anybody else's. When i see the images from the Z I am delighted! Can't really put a price on that. :)
 
Top